Re: Humakti temples

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_8CFWwdxn1Grc2iEc6EXii4LvDTkMRR4HKkJDf0SWsgkNyd_3zcV7n6q24xk3gsk8JwYb>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:42:13 -0000

> >> Of course--to bring it back to the question that launched this--if
> >> the king leans on the temple to pay wergild because a Humakti killed
> >> some punk who obviously had it coming, well, that could definitely
> >> fall into the category of "putting them in a position where they
would
> >> have to dishonor themselves"--that is, *would* have to, except
they'd
> >> just tell the king to piss up a rope.
>
> Why is it dishonourable to pay wergeld? Recognising you made a mistake
> and paying compensation is honourable behaviour in Orlanthi society.
> The mistake might be as little as failing to scare the attackers
> sufficently without killing one.

I don't think paying wergeld is dishonourable. In most cases, most people find it far more sensible than dealing with a feud. And the purpose of it is to get peace with the kinship group who likely feel obliged to make sure that their members don't get killed by others - even when they do something stupid.

> Well if it came down to the crunch a tribal warband would usually
> have enough warriors to take out a Humakti temple. Those Humakti
> sworn to the king would still fight for him as long as the temple
> wasn't desecrated. Sending other Humakti to their god wouldn't
> dishonour anyone. I'm sure it's happened a few times.

Most likely.

Jeff